My Union vs. The 2nd Amendment

I like:
1. Write your senators and congresscritter making clear that the union's position is not your position.
2. Try to find other union members who are pro-gun, and engage as a group with the leadership on this issue. (Do not behave like an adversary, make it about "communication".)

I had an interesting conversation with my union officers today (As I mentioned, they work in the same building as I do; so it is easy to see them at lunch). Two things. The first is that state law forbids the union from using dues for lobbying purposes. Lobbying money must come from a separate fund that is not funded by dues. The second is that the state level officers have been overwhelmed with opposition to the Anti-gun owners rights statements that the union made. As the poster above noted, they are slowly becoming aware that they are out of step with their membership on this issue.

I went to exactly 2 union meetings in my entire career. First was a complete waste of time as I didn't want to hear the socialist crap they were pushing, but as the years wore on, I was bugged to "attend the meetings" if I wanted my voice heard. I eventually went to another about ten years after the first. Our president came out and immediately started preaching about the evil of how "assault rifles" are killing people at some ridiculous made up rate, to high applause. At that point I had had enough and spoke up: What the hell has this to do with union business? I didn't come here to hear my union president yap about curtailing my Second Amendment rights! This is supposed to be about what the union is doing FOR me, not helping to TAKE AWAY from me! At that I got a smattering of applause, which was quickly drowned out by boos and downright evil intent the likes of which is being seen everyday on today's news, perpetrated by the left. I screamed some obscenities at the mob and walked out, followed by maybe 10 or 12 people. That was about 25 years ago. I have detested and fought the union pretty much my entire union career. Was asked to become a committeeman many times. More than likely, because they thought they could "convert" me. Not a chance-I've been hopelessly conservative all my life.

If that's happening where you're at, then it MUST be happening up here in Alaska.

Click to expand...

Only if you make it happen.

I wouldn't assume it. Alaska has a large number of people that go there to get away and may be more apt to ignore politics than play an active role.
It also has the highest percentage of any state in the nation that receives welfare, with a lot of the native population living on the government where many abuse alcohol and I would venture many have domestic violence issues that could disenfranchise them from caring about legal gun rights either way.

Wall Street got involved in the fishing industry reducing how much of it's generated wealth stays in Alaskan hands in the last decade.
In addition the amount of the money from the permanent fund dividend that all citizens get has been reduced with government taking a higher percentage to pay for government rather than give it directly to citizens from my understanding, not only not keeping it the same percentage but even legislatively limiting it.
(There is no mineral rights in Alaska, so oil companies have to pay, and a lot more of that money used to go directly into the pockets of the citizens rather than to fund inefficient government. Now government dips into those funds and gives less to the citizens.)

So there is a lot of pressures in the state that could turn it both liberal and anti-gun, and I wouldn't assume others will tow the line for keeping gun rights. The low population density and large animals that eat people is really all that state has on its side to preserve gun rights over other places. But as we see other places even the low population density benefit can be offset if you get a big enough urban center voting block that outvotes the rest of the state. Anchorage and enough native villages could have Alaska like California quicker than you may realize.
California was Alaska only 100 years ago, the frontier with Grizzly bears and Wolf packs and with more gun rights than most of the rest of the nation, including Castle Doctrine before that term even existed and the legal right to carry openly or concealed while it was banned on much of the east coast.
With concealed permitless carry ending in the late 20s under the pretense of reducing carrying by Asian and Hispanic minorities, and open carry ended by the Mulford act of 1967 (one year before prohibited persons of the GCA of 1968 would have disenfranchised any that were bothering government or having problems with police anyways.) to remove carrying by minorities, specifically blacks and Black Panthers.
So California was Alaska, and used race tensions to disarm the state. Reagan banned open carry signing the Mulford Act, and at the same time as president in 1986 then gave amnesty to illegals primarily living in CA starting the biggest voting block of hispanics that would never support limiting illegal or legal immigration and ultimately turning the state into predominantly Mexican in only a generation and creating a solid Democrat voting base that votes predominantly for the party that gives more financial assistance and social services.

Ronald Reagan a Republican caused a lot of what California became. It may be led by the San Francisco elite left based ideology (a city that even voted through popular vote to ban handgun ownership in the home not long ago and has intentionally eliminated gun stores from the city by making it too hard to operate), but that is not where the votes that they depend on come from. So don't put all your faith in Republicans either.

Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.

This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.